I would just like to start off with the broad statement that directors should have full creative control over their films. The idea that the movie studios who produce the film have the final say in what is seen by audiences is ludicrous because, though they are the ones putting up the money to fund the film, they are just the financiers and distributors, not the artist. People like directors and editors should work together to produce a final cut of the film based on what they feel to be the best version they can make. Creative control ultimately falls to the director but I feel that the director works with the editor to construct the final work. This partnership is a much more stable and productive one because both individuals are genuinely interested in the film itself (as opposed to the studio who is interested in the money the film can bring in). Also, you almost never hear about a feud between a director and an editor. Imagine if Christopher Nolan was having trouble with Dody Dorn (the editor). He would have never been able to pull of the non-linearity of Memento. But, the film would probably have been just as good if released by Tristar or FIlmDistrict. DO you even know what studio was behind Memento? It was Newmarket Films. Besides this film, I have never heard of Newmarket FIlms. I have probably seen their movies, but it did not really matter to me which studio financed the picture. For all I care, Troma could have produced the film, as long as it was the same Nolan picture. The same thing goes for Brazil: I do not care what Universal thought of Gilliam's cut; Gilliam was the director and his vision should be the final cut. Because I like Gilliam, I would have seen the film if it was rated G, PG, R, X, NC-17 or Unrated and financed by any studio. It doesn't matter. The studio is not what creates the film, they just finance it.
ANd I meant what I said; if I like the filmmakers, the rating doesn't matter to me. The reviews don't even matter, as long as it is that filmmaker's picture. If it was some studio-tampered reel or trash-cinema, I would be less likely to want to see the film, but just because it is a 132-minute R-rated film made by Universal does not mean that it is any better than a 97-minute X-rated film financed by Melvin van Peebles and Bill Cosby (like Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, "Rated X by an all-white jury"). The rating and studio just don't matter; the quality of the film is what matters. I know that the rating are supposed to be there to warn parents and to help people to determine what is appropriate, but they don't. Ratings are…well, overrated. They are just an extra little step to help the MPAA makes some money and to suppress independent film. I have never liked the whole rating system, but now that I have looked into it, I like it even less. Every child knows what genitalia look like; you are hiding anything. Maybe I am a bit biased, being a 16-year-old boy, but I've watched some of these mature films (Braveheart, Mad Max, Blade Runner, etc.) since I was a little kid and they didn't make me want to commit extreme acts of violence or curse profusely. No, all that these films did was to give me a better sense of what kind of movies were out there. Every since, I've enjoyed film - the medium, the art, the experience. So next time you say "Hmm. I don;t know if I should let my son see this film because it is R-rated", think about it. Maybe the film isn't so "bad" after all. Maybe, it is a modern masterpiece of cinematographic art.
ANd I meant what I said; if I like the filmmakers, the rating doesn't matter to me. The reviews don't even matter, as long as it is that filmmaker's picture. If it was some studio-tampered reel or trash-cinema, I would be less likely to want to see the film, but just because it is a 132-minute R-rated film made by Universal does not mean that it is any better than a 97-minute X-rated film financed by Melvin van Peebles and Bill Cosby (like Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, "Rated X by an all-white jury"). The rating and studio just don't matter; the quality of the film is what matters. I know that the rating are supposed to be there to warn parents and to help people to determine what is appropriate, but they don't. Ratings are…well, overrated. They are just an extra little step to help the MPAA makes some money and to suppress independent film. I have never liked the whole rating system, but now that I have looked into it, I like it even less. Every child knows what genitalia look like; you are hiding anything. Maybe I am a bit biased, being a 16-year-old boy, but I've watched some of these mature films (Braveheart, Mad Max, Blade Runner, etc.) since I was a little kid and they didn't make me want to commit extreme acts of violence or curse profusely. No, all that these films did was to give me a better sense of what kind of movies were out there. Every since, I've enjoyed film - the medium, the art, the experience. So next time you say "Hmm. I don;t know if I should let my son see this film because it is R-rated", think about it. Maybe the film isn't so "bad" after all. Maybe, it is a modern masterpiece of cinematographic art.